william_littman1

<p>There is an exception to this " stiffness" rule and was mostly accomplished when films got faster and strobes introduced and then using a small iris then the subject was enticed to move or " liven" and so whether a self Portrait By Irving Penn or a ballerinas swirl has been successfully captured in Lf " under controlled environment" and let me stress that meaning no finder was used and the action occurred within a predetermined parameter .<br> All Good so what is the problem?<br> you cannot do that with Lf handheld and that is where this camera performed better than others and that is all that can be possible.<br> can it be as responsive as a cellphone ? <br> No!<br> but it is the closest thing to using a cell phone to shoot while shooting a large negative and hoping for the definition and texture.</p> <p>and that was the purpose of the project .<br> I'm sure other people have interest in other areas of photography. I've always been interested in People first- then nature and people as they relate to an environment in a reportage approach</p>

<p>Drew your thoughts making sense to others depends strictly on whether they are strictly logical in which case they probably make sense to most people will to whatever extent possible .<br /> My remarks are a synergy of the technology at the service of the capture of spontaneity.<br /> If someone thinks with his heart they will make sense to him/ her to whatever extent the info is of interest to them.<br /> I have no desire to digress . I have been sent to read " how to make friends and influence people " that was the least of the assignments my teachers here have drummed up.<br /> I have singlehandedly placed a camera which was nothing more than a clunky pushcart in the plateau where it got to be considered as the most responsive easiest to use and lightest Lf camera and the influence was that my assurances of what it could do materialized in thousands of pictures which are consistent as to the synergy between the two desired variables a) hd B) the pursuit of spontaneity C) mobility. <br /> that is the only influence I deemed worth pursuing and Its been accomplished beyond what could be expected.<br /> here is a link to a few of the images produced<br /> https://www.facebook.com/Littman-Opus-Arte-Collection-Photo-Galleries-1164820563535967/</p> <p>Drew I hear your preference as to the workflow that suits your needs. and which makes sense.<br /> The antithesis of that is trying to a) empathize with the subject b) the pursuit of spontaneity.<br /> I'm sure anyone viewing this thread has heard some reference to indigenous people complaining that <br /> early photographers would " steal their soul " in taking their portrait. <br /> To make a long story short and what has been lost in translation referred to these people trying to say that a photograph which takes a lot of time to prepare - requires a pose and stillness robs the life force from the picture and thus in whatever words they could " steal their soul" wasn't a superstition but a quite<br /> accurate description of LF tripod photography for portraits. ( to be continued)</p>

<p>In an effort to stay on course and address what is relevant I reiterate that at these crossroads versus 16 years ago IMHO an financial expenditure on film for a larger capture area and ultimately if the case may be for a camera would have to be justified by a noticeable difference and that was the point of this thread.<br /> In addressing that one can notice that while my efforts to pursue the aesthetic aspect of a camera has been ridiculed - those who seek to compete have since incorporated those kinds of efforts convinced people buy these type of cameras for posturing ;) and after examining the cameras with bellows that look like Swiss cheese or borderline on the cheesy what I have to say is 10 years ago I cared and now I don't.<br /> The only thing that I can salvage out of these 16 years is having learned that some people feel sufficiently deserving to pursue their quests .Others convince themselves they have been enlisted by morality to prevent joy riders irresponsible risk taking in pursuing their creative pursuits . I only justify the procurement rent or borrowing of a camera to then invest the effort to take a better picture after which of course the camera itself should no longer be at the center of the interest, If it were that denotes there is no larger aim and obviously the camera is therefore pointless or has to be justified via a list of the stunts it can perform.<br /> I am fortunate to have had 18 years 2 with 3x4 before I started the 4x5 where people who knew me professionally and who were proficient embraced my technique and reported it helped them as I said it would. <br /> There is a kindness and a respect for creativity and creative which supercedes the need for exactitude when describing a camera math as the true math will have to then be the camera math summated to the math it produces in terms of aesthetics.<br /> The failure to communicate stems solely from an unwillingness to raise to the occasion of a higher more fluid purpose.<br /> If the pursuit of spontaneity handheld with large format is something which some don't believe in then I have nothing to defend and I doubt one could at these crossroads .<br /> As I said earlier It is now a matter of preference .<br /> And as far as the blowups by those who find it all suspicious and spam the answer is that from 2010 I have only agreed to sell cameras to a limited number of individuals after verifying they indeed have ;<br /> A) a creative interest<br /> B) the willingness to make the effort<br /> C) the perseverance to stay the course to see the light at the end of the tunnel.</p> <p>Why?<br /> Simple in the absence of those 3 things there is only undeserving un affording and blame.</p> <p>here is my spam to photo.net: before you spend a penny on any purchase buy yourself the right to claim the time to think your pictures until they improve and one day you can expect to obtain the most creative images you can as effortlessly as possible. only then can you presume to rate photographic equipment spend all your time discussing it and of course tell others what they should use should only come after your photography with anything but a cellphone is worth a penny more than what it cost you to produce.</p>

<p>thanks Glenn<br> No it is simply an itemization of the relevant / related issues to the so called conversion and the evolution of the use based on the necessity versus preference factor. Clearly its not as organized as I would have wished but did my best with the limited time I could allocate.</p>

<p>I understand what you say and can sort of visualize it but then I know digital can be hD EVEN AT ISO 3000 AND HIGHER and if you stop down a LF lens you are not going to see much on the glass back.<br> you can connect a 800 or a new canon with 36mega to a laptop and then your viewfinder can be as big as you need.<br> and then with the disability you describe you should get a photo.net member who is a lawyer help you obtain a grant to help you bridge the gap. if you have made a dedicated creative effort I see no reason why that would be so hard on a one shot deal.<br> where there is a will there is a way and I batch combine my developments for once a month mostly because I don't have the time and then you can simplify to monobaths or lab offers.<br> I have this guy in Miami that will process and contact 20 sheet of color or bw for 2 each. I doubt diy can be cheaper.<br> if the size of the screen is the factor then a bigger digi screen is the answer.<br> if you can make the creative investment then the size of the film will matter otherwise the digital being luminosity adjustable will in the end be more versatile.</p>

<p>Drew<br> Another way to answer your question would be to say that if a cell phone can provide a sufficiently Hd image I don't see a future where people would have to bother with all these rules unless there was an aesthetic pursuit whatever it may be in which case that requires good taste - that of course is subject to personal preference but in no case can it apply to the type of pettiness and nitpicking which we have had to read here. In this thread If I have mentioned my camera is because that has been my experience and anyone who reads the thread cannot say Im suggesting anyone should rush to buy a camera- much to the contrary I am saying that for those who make educated choices it may be a good choice. I think I have addressed the subject sufficiently for thos who may benefit and for the rest I invite you to engage your time in those subjects which interest you so as to use your valuable time and preserve the good vibe of the forum by trusting those who are interested will respond and if not it will take less bandwith . thank you.</p>

<p>Mr nanian this is not an advertising but a narration of the change of use over 16 years. I find it in very bad taste that you would constantly email me privately appearing to be interested in the subjects and then throw a bucket of cold water as is this. please do not send me any more Pms perhaps if more people were interested in using cameras for what they could accomplish and appreciate them for what they are for I wouldn't have to come here to explain it. Obviously those who can seek the pursuit of spontaneity hand held have done so effectively. I'm going to gargle with that thought until the bad taste of the bad energy and negativity dissipates and then focus on an audience with higher aims. thank you. unbelievable!!!!</p>

<p>Drew as your question was important I will expand the response:<br /> My position has always been that the larger the capture area the larger the need to justify composition flow and the synergy between the obvious and any inference one tries to convey.<br /> Unfortunately large format was embraced because it was no other choice at first and then because it was a higher definition than other formats and there has never been a pervasive understanding of the difference in what refers to the line drawing aspect of the image as opposed to an equal amount of resolution and texture by a smaller digital capture.<br /> you cannot justify what you don't seek take for granted or only embrace on the quest to something else.<br /> Someone who only listens to music while on a date because that looks good is not going to support the future of the music industry any more than people who embraced large format because it yielded " more impressive" results.<br /> The gaps are being bridged in what refers to quantity and not too much people can tell the difference much less explain the difference in quality beyond higher or lower quality.</p> <p>rest assured that as some point there will have to be 4x5 and larger digital sensors not necessarily to support large format cameras but because Nasa for example will at some point <br /> realize that would be the only way to expand their telescope capability or letr me refraze..<br /> it would cost less to make a 20x24 digital sensor than to send two missions into space to send two telescopes instead of one and so a huge expense will pale by comparison and so rest assured large format will be around even if for a different reason and then there is the cyclical factor where the generational thing has your kids learning how to start from scratch and so it will be revisited once the process goes digital.<br /> You hear people say " real photography" as seems to be the marketing strategy behind new55 new 55 film which is clearly nonsensical if you skip the aesthetics because a larger area + a bad aesthetic choice renders an uglier picture and so it becomes " real ugly photography"<br /> A camera that can do anything without your effort is called a cell phone and now at 40 mega with nokia and soon will be 80 im sure with someone else and so in the absence of an understanding by artists of the benefit of the large format aesthetics I cannot assure a future that makes sense but will be surely dwindling.<br /> I am very clear about one thing and I have no other way to explain it.<br /> I have been a pro photographer for 30 years and was quasi born in a photo studio and so can tell u a very large camera slows you down but you end up with a lot of texture and a very small camera speeds u up but end up with what looks lacking lustre so in my book 4x5 lets you have the texture the ratio and at the cusp of what can be mobile enough to pursue the capture of spontaneity and so while not for all and not for all occasions I believe those who understand the benefit will continue to whatever degree is justified and for the rest nothing shall be missed as the tech rendered a great service and moving on is the way of the world.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Been getting a lot of people saying they haven't gotten their rewards but others say if you now pay you can soon play?<br /> What's the bottom line here ?<br /> Ive asked directly but that's a whole " new" planet ;)</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Mr Bedo;<br> As I see it the future will be for those who want to use it for art and experimentation and for the line drawing qualities of a more 1 to 1 ratio other than that I don't see a future.<br> Answering Mr Salomon<br> In Spanish there is a saying" no hay mal que por bien no venga" which means that sometimes an unexpected<br> unpleasantness can shed light on important aspects.<br> In this case your volunteering of the great marketing trajectory coupled with being obsessive as to the type of posts or whether it may be an ad to sell a camera I can add the following<br> I am not a photographic marketer by trade but a photographer- one who got results at the helm of the profession and the so called gibberish is the summation of the technical explained with the emotion justifying it to get results . cameras can do? " nothing" photographers do and a camera can only facilitate that effort one is willing to make.<br> The most proficient applaud my gibberish or whatever it can be called.<br> Like in politics now people prefer those who gets results to politician and in photography it is a comparable analogy.</p>

<p>All good but again I seem to have such luck in not getting tangled in discussion subjects which I don't understand do not interest me or give me headache's. and have never had the poor taste to demand a discussion have to be of my liking. there are so many subjects out there.<br> I trust that there are people of good disposition who can benefit from the information as it refers to a camera rated as the most responsive easiest to use large format camera in history at least that was the opinion of Popular Photography and if not Id rather be fishing than bothering with the fidgety nonsense <br> et voila</p>

<p>Salomon the issue about HP was an assurance from someone here who claims to know you and since you were present in the discussion I brought it up so there is no possible misinformation since you were present to clarify it.</p>

<p>Tim I couldn't agree more. the weirdness has always been there but repressed hidden and concealed and which can look very annoying to those who thought reality was America in the 50s. that wasn't reality that was the biggest lie to date layer upon layer of don't ask don't tell.<br> I would dare add that anyone can notice that on any given subject even the most offensive circa 50% are in favor and 50 per cent are against. <br> In the end the answer is that issues of duality fail to resolve because they are not sufficiently important in themselves and only a consequence of a circumstantial necessity.<br> if one takes a step back is isn't hard at all to see there is always someone trying to crash your parade because they cant find a better use for their time . it is weird but not that unusual lol</p>

<p>8<br> " im not going to mortgage the house to buy a Littman"<br> I was extremely saddened when the housing crisis deteriorated and posters on the " Littman on ebay 8000" told me they had lost their homes during the housing crisis<br> the flip side of that came in a message quite unexpected from my first client the first Littman 45 owner earlier this year; and which read"It's been a very long time my friend! Hope you're well! My Littman 4x5 is the best thing I ever purchased. Have many images to share with you....<br> I was quite surprised to hear at a later conversation that the camera ( all about it works perfectly ) after 16 plus years without no maintenance or improvements past the original first stage.<br> So I have learned you cannot judge the world by the perception or expectations of just one person and so Glad to have carried on.<br> I think it is best to seek your destiny than spend it discouraging people from doing things that one has no interest in. surely better to gain allegiance from those who share our views than spend life trying to change everyone's mind.</p>

<p>I appreciate the narrative ref the lengthy trail of corporate entities associated With Hp marketing. People own corporations. I hereby accept your response as the truth being that your family neither owns Hp marketing nor is a beneficiary and that is the end of that.<br> I and many other members of this forum hope you can find a better use of your retirement time than badgering members who have not retired with alarmism that would seem aimed at expediting their retirement.<br> all best W</p>

<p>Dear Mr Salomon : are you a man of your word?<br> as per the following you were not going to attack my postings with suspicion allegations any longer</p> <p ><a name="00dPlL"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=47422">Bob Salomon</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 30, 2015; 08:04 a.m.</p> <p>"Be it as it may. I am going to ignore this from now on. I suspect that he originally posted this as a hidden ad for his cameras. Especially since he has not answered :<br> 1: what it pays that someone else asked 2: where it is available 3: why it would not be available through traditional sources.<br> So, good luck with it, should it come to be."<br> But here you are the same ol energizer Bunny .<br> I think people believed you when you said that on July 30th<br> I expect you to honor it GODDBYE!!!</p>

<p>8) Why I abandoned the pursuit to remanufacture type 55 film.<br /> about a month ago I posted my opinion on the New55 page on Facebook telling a user what Helmut Newton told me on the first day I assisted him and that is that your picture is / can only be as good as the subject you choose and how you approach it and then embrace it.<br /> New55 deleted all my posts even though I'm not a resentful person and continue to endorse them but a few years back it became clear to me I didn't want to become whet I have just described happed to me .<br /> I didn't want to find myself in the position of needing to sell a lot of film and rather have a clear conscience and tell people what I believe which is that the use of a larger format is justified proportionally<br /> by a larger effort by the user to choose a larger subject in what refers to interest and or to make an effort to make it interesting. I have been criticized as if elitist because of my opinions and admit that when it comes to aesthetics I do believe one needs to pursue a goal even if it differs from the norm because it is ones own choice and have a very hard time looking at samples of a 4x5 film shown in attempts to demonstrate its quality and see the aesthetics being neglected because everyone I respect would say they can do the same for free or" you spent 18.00 to get that?" or I would feel like a nerd defending the cost if the aesthetics are not a priority.<br /> In a comparison I found it hard to justify the use of a Leica or a Hasselblad when film was the only option if the aesthetics were not an integral part of the picture and now that there is the digital option where after an initial expenditure there is not a cost each time you use it I cannot recommend to people who aren't willing to do the work it takes to get clever pictures that they should seek to use my cameras as in the absence of such effort the extra ease of use will not ease anything.and that my friends is the long and the short of why this subject has faced controversy even if the<br /> particular details differed at each turn when people eager to sell cameras to anyone who would pay dismissed what I said as rabble or elitism.<br /> I expect to make very few cameras and only sell them to people who have the ambition to seek to do<br /> a better picture than they did yesterday other than that I feel what I sought to accomplish was accomplished and now I am going to again pursue my profession which is photography.</p>

<p>7) " Synergy"<br> I was enthusiastic and insistent that the concurrent functions of true parallelism+ a true lens cam+ true focus + quantitative parallax( true crop lines) + qualitative parallax optics added to the viewfinder which mimic the camera lens barrel distortions so as to provide the closest viewing to slr thru a rangefinder viewfinder would free up the user to pursue snapshots on the go with large format as if with the small popular German 35mm camera.<br> I believe that after 16 years the extensive body of work generated in this manner by the users justifies my beliefs as while I cannot claim the cameras have produced the greatest body of work to date I am satisfied<br> that the testimonials which insist the greater ease of use and responsiveness does translate into a spontaneity and ease in the subjects which has translated into the imagery.<br> I do believe that If Polaroid hadn't gone belly up a month after it was introduced in 2001 the extent of the project would have had a much larger audience and then while the Polaroid films continued to be made under the Peters group digital claimed a significant portion of the market and all the more reason to put emphasis on the justification of a film expenditure at a time when few are willing by providing a higher quality result which would justify the film expenditure for this specific intended use.<br> The issue of whether one would save money by using a less expensive alternative = the answer I get from professionals today is the lesser expenditure is digital and so that places a burden on the 4x5 consideration for the pursuit of spontaneity as follows<br> cost expenditure+ spontaneity attainment+ personal effort expenditure at the decisive moment has to equate to a significantly better result to justify the expenditure by a user and that was the challenge I faced <br> and I'm simply disclosing why I stayed on this course.</p>

<p>Dear Rodeo Joe<br /> your question though highly sarcastic has a lot of merit in that the whole issue of the importance of parallelism has been treated very similar to the issue of whether smoking causes cancer.<br /> Tobacco companies chose the strategy to ridicule the notion that smoking was harmful because it was an issue which could not be resolved without heavy losses.<br /> the photography industry chose the strategy that parallelism would not be addressed as a concern firstly because at the onset most photography was ground glass and in which case a manual adjustment of the standards could correct the issue to some extent and then most photography was suggested f16-f22 strobe etc.<br /> There have been better cameras with acceptable levels of parallelism a calculation and measurement when the parameters were based on f22 photography in which case most minimal parallelism error can be masked by aperture.<br /> it is indeed alien to consensus that parallelism can be so critical in f2.8- f11 photography because it was an issue always skipped because if users may have known more that so much stopdown was required to get " all in focus" while using large format hand held there would have generated a consensus that large format hand held is simply not possible unless you strobe it .<br /> Some say the simplest answer tends to always be the truest.<br /> This proved to be the case.<br /> as mentioned if you move a lens.10mm from its infinity position it will entirely defocus an image and the usual parallelism error in large format cameras tends to exceed several degrees per standard so x2 that exceeds 5 degrees which can still be unnoticeable to the naked eye but translates into a necessity for closing the lens by several stops.<br /> secondly and the most relevant issue is that a defocused lens stopped down to f 45 renders less perfection than a focused lens at f22.<br /> it is a very simple fact on paper but extremely difficult and costly to achieve to attain zero error in parallelism between front and back standards on a 4x5 and quasi impossible on larger formats and the reason it was simply bypassed and I had no choice but to address it if I hoped to have a camera that could actually be useable as a large format snapshot camera while using slow films and natural light for people photography.<br /> when you combine slow film + format+ natural light the requirement is very strict.<br /> Otherwise to most a negligible nuissance of large format which has been bypassed to date in tripod photography and thus alien to concensus.</p>

<p>Dear Mr Salomon<br> no it is not an" Ad mission" and yes it is a set of admissions :) .<br> as if this would all be in the hopes of getting better negatives more transparency is required ;)<br> Let me give you an example ; You have been in this forum since 1999 - made over 3000 postings <br> have you ever bothered to disclose in any of them that HP marketing was owned by your family? <br> I ask because you told me a few months ago you are retired. How do you retire from your family? ;)</p>

<p>6)Movements<br> Needless to say that in a hand held snapshot camera the only applicable movements are tilt and closeup<br> here are samples of <br> the close up feature<br> https://www.facebook.com/william.littman/media_set?set=a.535903179818131.1073741837.100001953618923&type=3</p> <p>here is a sample of close up and tilt combined<br> <p>6.2<br> swings and shifts cannot be used in conjunction with rangefinder but in what is relevant to these crossroads in time is that swings and shifts significantly degrade the image quality by using the lens edges instead of the lens center and require smaller apertures.<br> there is no loss of quality while doing swings and shifts in photoshop therefore for many travel and architectural photographers even those who use large format such corrections are best left to post production these days.<br> 7</p>

<p>Salomon you've been at photo.net for so long in a few days you will be able to drink here ;)</p>

<p>When I introduced my first camera on March 11th of 2000 digital capture was still under development and large format was still the only way to obtain high definition images. After 2011 digital has caught up and last week at a book signing one of the most renowned fashion Photographers famous for his use of 8x10 told me his 35mm digital is sharper than his 8x 10 and he loves it.<br /> Such change which is echoed throughout the professional arena has caused a change in direction and justification for the so called conversion .<br /> I will post a list of numbered issues so as to address the changes .<br /> 1)Sharpness depth of field and even focus throughout the plane<br /> a hand held camera cannot be used for stop down photography <br /> a small sensor or capture area has a greater depth of field appearance than a larger area <br /> to address this issue for hand held use we introduced perfectible parallelism in 2007 to increase the sharpness by several stops without having to use smaller lens openings.<br /> 2) Bellows<br /> most so called conversions have been issued using the original Polaroid bellows except for our company and one other and which have many pinhole light leaks in the corners of the folds.<br /> these are intermittently masked by the fact the inner and outer bellows have become separated by the drying of the glue over time and so may give the impression of light tight when tested but intermittent leaks when shooting which cant be found until the bellows are torn apart and seen under a light.<br /> 3)Patents<br /> We haven't sued anyone who has made a camera for their own use and no longer care to address such issues as it was important at the onset but no longer is.<br /> 4) Lens interchangeability<br /> Firstly <br /> The basic configuration of these cameras doesn't allow for multiple cropping settings and doesn't allow for multiple cam settings <br /> therefore one would at best get one lens to focus crop while coupled that would be the first limitation but most importantly the limited bellow extension determines that the range cap off at 150mm .<br /> lens interchangeability is therefore pointless for the hand held application and weakens the structural so we abstained .<br /> All these cameras can be at best is like a big Makina 67 for responsive and spontaneous capture .<br /> trying to force it to be something else is IMHO pointless at a time when a Linhof which can do all else well is relatively inexpensive so I continue to recommend such camera for all Tripod use and use it myself..</p> <p>5) 2 sided holders versus Grafmatics<br /> again up to 2011 I would say Lf photography remained the sole source for HD imagery and as most LF <br /> lenses were design for optimum performance around f 22 that sort of excludes the use of hand held 4x5 at wide open apertures and if performing fine is already a stretch when expecting to use fast shutter speeds.<br /> It is for this reason we have been very persistent in recommending the avoidance of 2 sided holders because as Schneider had posted in their website when they still made LF lenses " there is a 4mm play"<br /> .10 mm enough to defocus a photograph.<br /> We took this strict position during the testing of perfectible parallelism in 2007.<br /> 2 identical cameras were sent out and one was doing great and the other one horrible.<br /> the one which was underperforming kept being sent back and to our surprise had no malfunction.<br /> 4 months into the testing the guy travelled and left his 2 sided holders home because of the weight and <br /> borrowed a grafmatic from a friend and the film came back being of comparable quality to the other camera .<br /> So it is my position that if you can dimple strap down or tie the old holders it is idiotic for hand held use <br /> because you cannot stop down the lens to compensate for holder inefficiency.<br /> I will post the remainder of the relevant issues as time permits.<br /> Thank you.</p>

<p>Can someone explain this?<br> Recently Bob Crowley stated that there was a problem with New55 New 55 film in that the rollers of the 545 have to be re tensioned<br> but the fact is the new film is minus the parchment edges which formed the type 55 borders( the main reason people liked the film and which Crowley refers as Polatrash.<br> whatever the case may be that is obviously the width missing and the lessened tension.<br> folks this is obviously not the theory of everything but the theory of everything made up as it goes along<br> What credibility is there to such scientific ensuing excuses? </p>

<p>Film cannot be sharper at the center who knows not where the center is since it is a mindless sensitized surface lol<br> even focus thru out the plane is a matter of parallelism or the lack of it + aperture choice</p>